Log in ·
Of course and of course not (in that order). We couldn't draft the 2nd Amendment until after we kicked them out, so all you're doing is grasping at semantics to avoid the truth in what I said.
Posted 21 April 2018, 12:47 p.m.
So pull your head out of the sand and quit trying to create more defenseless victims.
Posted 21 April 2018, 12:43 p.m.
I believe by under it means "restricted by" and not "protected by". It's poorly written for sure.
Posted 21 April 2018, 12:37 p.m.
They are not the leaders of tomorrow. They are the proletariat of tomorrow demanding the shackles of an oppressive government be placed upon them securely before they are smart enough to throw off such shackles.
"I think you can put this country back to the way it is supposed to be" Do you mean back to being subjects of the crown with no rights? That is what this country was before the 2nd Amendment...
Posted 20 April 2018, 10:53 p.m.
"This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with new regulations need to stay active and loud." - In other words, you admit that all of the laws you've pushed through in the past didn't work but somehow they will work if you can just recycle them and call them new? I guess that would explain your irrational spamming of this forum with the same outdated and unrelated links repeatedly...
"WE don't need to own assault weapons, military style assault weapons, weapons that can accept magazines or SWAT team style weapons. The second amendment did not approve these weapons. " I'd say speak for yourself, but you've made it fairly clear that you're not competent enough to do that. If you had a brain in that empty skull of yours, you would be able to tell the difference between "assault weapons", which require federal approval and fees to posses, and scary looking AR-15 style weapons that lack selective fire and thus are not military/SWAT weapons. Further, history shows that the 2nd Amendment was in fact intended to keep the people on equal footing with an army, so it would be illogical to say it excludes military weapons. While mortars and howitzers are illegal today, they were legal then. Cannons were also legal then but are actually still legal today as the "primitive firing mechanism" excludes them from the current restrictions along with the muskets of the time, which would otherwise be outlawed today for being larger than .50 caliber.
Finally, you'd better be careful about saying "Can we say no more special interest political donations?" A lot of Democrats would be rather upset (and broke) if George Soros had to quit trying to buy the government he wants.
Posted 7 April 2018, 1:06 p.m.
If you are as concerned about gun accidents by children as you claim (instead of just seeing more support for your agenda), can I count on you to support the NRA Eddie Eagle (or similar) program in schools so that kids have factual knowledge about guns and gun safety in case they ever come across one instead of just going by what they see on TV and in video games?
Perhaps you could review the handling and storage suggestions from the NRA and tell me which ones you disagree with?
Posted 7 April 2018, 12:43 p.m.
You forget one other thing about the gun bans in the "Wild West". They weren't really aimed at the citizens of the town. They were aimed at the outlaws and trail crews. Unless the town was so small that everybody with a front door in town could walk out their back door and be out of town, there had to be provision for transporting your gun between home and city limits. I'm sure that more flagrant abuses of this were dealt with, especially when the trail crews were in town and already unhappy with the law, but I'm also sure that law enforcement tended to look the other way when you stopped at the diner, the general store, the saloon, and so forth while armed because you were on your way to the livery to get your horse and ride out of town (even if you never made it to the livery). Further, just like today, I'm sure the big shots and town officials carried regularly even if not openly because they didn't believe the law applied to them (and made sure that the local law knew that as well).
Posted 7 April 2018, 12:38 p.m.
You know it's going to be a fun read when they start off with a shootout caused by gun control laws as supporting evidence for gun control laws...
It's an interesting article, but quite biased in the writing and even then is contrary to the gun bans you so fervently support. They even quoted "Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea." The hostile native tribes bit may not currently apply, but the other two still do. While cities and towns may hold around 80% of the population, they cover an underwhelming minority of the land. When I'm at my parents' farm, I almost never see a LEO unless I drive to the county seat and go by the police station. I know to allow about half an hour for them to arrive if called in an emergency. It takes longer for an ambulance plus the trip back to a hospital isn't short, so defending yourself to prevent injury is even more important in those kinds of locations. Of course, that's nothing compared to the remote areas of places like Wyoming and especially Alaska.
It's also interesting to note that they included this quote: "The buffalo hunters and range men have protested against the iron rule of Dodge's peace officers, and nearly every protest has cost human life." After including that, they switched to talking about murders to avoid having to count all of the killing done by LEOs for the simple protest of carrying the means of self defense. They did slack off and include the deaths at the O.K. Corral but didn't explain what they did and why Tombstone (1881) wasn't listed with Ellsworth (1873) and Dodge City (1876) as the worst if they had the same number of killings (5). They just hoped that they could slip that in without anybody noticing the switch from murders to killings so they could hide the discrepancy.
But, the worst was when they said the worst violence was in towns that " lack effective law enforcement, a functioning judicial system, and firearm law" and somehow conclude that the last one is the important one. Never mind that without the first two the third one is irrelevant. Never mind that without the first one, the second two are irrelevant. Never mind that mining boom towns were low risk / high reward and would not have followed the pattern of more established (higher risk / lower reward) towns even if they had all three of those things in place. No, the gun bans 'worked' because of the presence of law enforcement and the fact that those they killed were not considered to be murdered even if they committed no other crime than being armed.
Posted 7 April 2018, 12:27 p.m.
Are you saying he would be alive today if he had been unarmed? If so, you've got a lot of explaining to do to convince me. If not, your comment is irrelevant.
Posted 4 April 2018, 10:54 p.m.
No, it does not show otherwise. However, your post does show that you are relying on a logical fallacy to get around the truth in the statement. It doesn't have to occur in every situation for it to be a true statement. Even worse, you bank on incidents that occur where civilian good guys are prohibited from carrying a gun to justify your claim that armed civilians don't help.
Do you have anything other than dishonesty to justify your assault on my rights?
Posted 4 April 2018, 9:59 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com